showed up to navarro s home and served him with a subpoena specifically asking him to provide to a grand jury documents related to his refusal to comply with the house select committee. including any communications that he had had with former president trump or his lawyers. peter navarro has been public about his efforts to undermine the outcome of the 20 20 election. he was subpoenaed by the committee last february and refused to comply with that, citing executive privilege. the committee, though, at the time, said look, there s a lot of things we want to talk to you about that you ve spoken about publicly. you have published in your book, and that would not be covered by executive privilege. come in and answer our questions. he refused to do that. he refused to provide any documents. the house voted to refer him to the justice department for criminal contempt. he s been indicted by a grand jury. what happens next in the legal process? he s expected to appear in court la
contempt. sent to it doj, and doj has now charged peter navarro with a crime. there s a message to other people who may be considering defying the committee. however, it does bear noting this makes quite clear that doj is nowhere near charging mark meadows. the mark meadows contempt referral got sent over six months ago. this one got sent about two months ago. so it raises the question will doj will charging meadows, seems like not. will doj will charging dan skavino held in contempt the same day? there s a mixed message. i think if i m somebody thinking about well, should i comply with the subpoena to testify in hearings? i m taking note of this indictment of navarro, and i could push me toward testifying. help me with the question. we know peter navarro was involved after the election of trying to help, trying to find ways to sometimemy the results, steal the election. that s peter navarro. we know from text messages that
and the witnesses to these attack, and to the extent that they have important information here, i think they have a duty to request it, and to use subpoenas and enforce them if it s necessary. and even if they come in and aren t terribly help full like judy giuliani and don jr., we don t expect to see a lot of confessions or things like that, you at least lock them into a story. you get their answers, you get it under oath, and then it s much more difficult later for them to wiggle out of it. do we know at the department of justice is doing with it mark meadows contempt case? it s been more than four months, and he still sitting pretty. if i m one of these other people that s gets called in for an interview, i just look at them, why don t i go the marksman meadows root, would nothing happen to him? i don t know. one theory that s possible is, the justice department is supposed to file criminal charges if there s probable cause and there s no adequate alternative remedy. here, we kn
it under oath, and then it s much more difficult later for them to wiggle out of it. do we know at the department of justice is doing with it mark meadows contempt case? it s been more than four months, and he s still sitting pretty. if i m one of these other people that s gets called in for an interview, i just look at them, why don t i go the mark meadows route, nothing happened to him? i don t know. one theory that s possible is, the justice department is supposed to file criminal charges if there s probable cause and there s no adequate alternative remedy. here, we know that mark meadows filed his own lawsuit in december to challenge those subpoenas. in fact, there s been a motion for summary judgment filed by the committee. that case is coming to a head, where a judge in that case is going to permit the ruling, either allowing him to quash the subpoena or telling him he s got to go testify. and that could be a critical point in the litigation that the justice department is wai
especially these younger folks who are new in their careers and potentially have a long career in politics ahead of them. but that s why i think the mark meadows contempt referral is going to be increasingly important, especially as merrick garland continues to be silent on it, because if you talk to lawmakers, they ll say that steve bannon s contempt prosecution, the doj ultimately taking up that referral, actually had a positive effect and impact on getting other players to cooperate, and with these outstanding lists of people who have yet to cooperate, people who were very close to the former president, there is a feeling, maybe, that that would get sort of the remaining people to buck up and do the right thing. so now that you are our colleague, two things to put on our to-do list. one, my dog was howling during the beginning of this hour, so we ll let them talk to one another on a slow news day. and two, i mean, i m always